I've been using my XV6700 smartphone for just over a year now, and the one thing that always annoyed me about Windows PocketPC was the fact that applications didn't close when I tapped what I thought was the Close button (X in the upper right-hand corner). Apparently, it is more of a minimize button, and the application continues to run in the background, taking up CPU cycles and memory. I never bothered to find a better solution, even though I knew one probably existed, and had just resigned myself to going to the memory settings once in awhile, and stopping the running programs.
One night, I was up doing some late night web surfing in bed, and was reading the mobile version of PocketPC Magazine. It looks great on a PDA screen. Jim Karpen's web guide mentioned a task manager called Magic Button. I can't remember all the details, but I think I was able to download the .CAB file directly to my XV6700 and run the installation, and in a matter of minutes, I had full control over my applications. I could actually close apps, as well as easily switch between apps, if I wanted to keep several running. And to top it off, Magic Button was FREE!
There are probably other PocketPC task managers out there, and some would probably like to take your money. Do yourself a favor -- use Magic Button, save yourself some dough, and tame those PocketPC apps once and for all.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Troubleshooting a wireless network
Unlike my previous post about "fixing" my wireless network by going wired, I actually had to do some wireless network troubleshooting over the weekend, so I thought I would share the experience.
Pam was having trouble with wireless dropouts and poor coverage. When I initially setup her wireless network, she didn't have any of those problems. Wireless routers, are typically all-or-nothing, i.e. they either work or they don't, so the fact that her wifi worked some of the time indicated that something else was interfering with her wireless network, rather than the wireless router going bad.
Wifi interference can be caused by any number of other electronic devices that use the same frequency in the 2.4 Ghz range. Fortunately, wireless hardware manufacturers included a user-selectable channel setting specifically designed to combat interference. Googling wifi interference returns a multitude of search results.
Pam's router, a Netgear FM114P, was still using the default channel setting of "6". I had heard of fancy wireless scanning gear that will scan a location, and identify frequencies already in use, but not having such gear my disposal, I knew it would be an exercise in trial and error. I dropped the channel setting to "4", allowed the router to reboot, and watched in amazement as the entire wireless router completely disappeared. My laptop didn't even pick up the SSID! I had probably stumbled upon the sweet spot of the interference, where it peaked the most. So, I decided to try the other direction. I selected channel 11, from a computer with a wired connection since wireless was effectively neutralized, and rebooted the router. This time, the results were vastly different, in a good way. My laptop automatically picked up the defined SSID, and before I could even get to the keyboard, it had negotiated an IP address. I walked over to Pam's laptop in the next room, and it had done the same. I carried my laptop to the far end of their house, and had Pam do the same. No dropouts, and a good strong 90+ signal.
Adjusting the wireless router channel also allowed them to finally get their Nintendo Wii online. I suppose I could have used NetStumbler and tried EVERY channel to see which provided the best signal, but I'll save that for a later date. Knowing that the wifi "bubble" lives in an ever-changing world, all it will take is one neighbor to buy a new cordless phone or baby monitor, and I'll be back to re-tweak the settings.
Pam was having trouble with wireless dropouts and poor coverage. When I initially setup her wireless network, she didn't have any of those problems. Wireless routers, are typically all-or-nothing, i.e. they either work or they don't, so the fact that her wifi worked some of the time indicated that something else was interfering with her wireless network, rather than the wireless router going bad.
Wifi interference can be caused by any number of other electronic devices that use the same frequency in the 2.4 Ghz range. Fortunately, wireless hardware manufacturers included a user-selectable channel setting specifically designed to combat interference. Googling wifi interference returns a multitude of search results.
Pam's router, a Netgear FM114P, was still using the default channel setting of "6". I had heard of fancy wireless scanning gear that will scan a location, and identify frequencies already in use, but not having such gear my disposal, I knew it would be an exercise in trial and error. I dropped the channel setting to "4", allowed the router to reboot, and watched in amazement as the entire wireless router completely disappeared. My laptop didn't even pick up the SSID! I had probably stumbled upon the sweet spot of the interference, where it peaked the most. So, I decided to try the other direction. I selected channel 11, from a computer with a wired connection since wireless was effectively neutralized, and rebooted the router. This time, the results were vastly different, in a good way. My laptop automatically picked up the defined SSID, and before I could even get to the keyboard, it had negotiated an IP address. I walked over to Pam's laptop in the next room, and it had done the same. I carried my laptop to the far end of their house, and had Pam do the same. No dropouts, and a good strong 90+ signal.
Adjusting the wireless router channel also allowed them to finally get their Nintendo Wii online. I suppose I could have used NetStumbler and tried EVERY channel to see which provided the best signal, but I'll save that for a later date. Knowing that the wifi "bubble" lives in an ever-changing world, all it will take is one neighbor to buy a new cordless phone or baby monitor, and I'll be back to re-tweak the settings.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Ctrl-Enter - Web browser keyboard efficiency
I went on a business trip a couple of years back, and picked up a computer magazine in the airport for the plane ride. I was just hoping to just keep myself from getting bored, but ended up learning a little tip that I still use to this day.
When typing in a URL into your web browser, if the desired destination is the usual http colon backslash backslash www dot com, simply type the domain name, and use CTRL-ENTER to do the rest. For example, if you want to go to http://www.google.com, just enter "google" and CTRL-ENTER. Saves a whole bunch of time and keystrokes (fourteen to be exact, but who's counting?).
It works on every web browser and operating system that I have tried. I've even taught this trick to my daughter, and now she can get to her favorite websites. Yes, I could make a bunch of shortcuts for her, but she likes typing out words like "barbie" or "noggin", as long there aren't too many letters.
One last tip. Make sure the site you intend to visit is in fact a .com. It doesn't work with .org, .net, or anything else. Otherwise, you may find yourself somewhere you DON'T want to be.
When typing in a URL into your web browser, if the desired destination is the usual http colon backslash backslash www dot com, simply type the domain name, and use CTRL-ENTER to do the rest. For example, if you want to go to http://www.google.com, just enter "google" and CTRL-ENTER. Saves a whole bunch of time and keystrokes (fourteen to be exact, but who's counting?).
It works on every web browser and operating system that I have tried. I've even taught this trick to my daughter, and now she can get to her favorite websites. Yes, I could make a bunch of shortcuts for her, but she likes typing out words like "barbie" or "noggin", as long there aren't too many letters.
One last tip. Make sure the site you intend to visit is in fact a .com. It doesn't work with .org, .net, or anything else. Otherwise, you may find yourself somewhere you DON'T want to be.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Yahoo! TV on a real TV
I'm a huge hockey fan, especially of the Vancouver Canucks. But being in Oregon, I don't get many chances to watch them play, because they are NEVER on TV, unless you spring for the NHL Center Ice package. Fortunately for me, Yahoo! has started broadcasting select games over the internet.
I watched a few games on my computer monitor, but found the experience was less than satisfying. Then I remembered that my Polaroid LCD TV had, of all things, a VGA input. I enabled the dual monitor display on my laptop, connected it up to the TV with a VGA cable, and started watching the broadcast, making sure to put the Yahoo! video player into full screen mode. I ran an audio cable from the headphone jack (3.5 mm stereo) to my stereo, and sat back on the couch to enjoy the game.
There is a little compression artifact, and I can't change channels, or pause live TV like Tivo or DVR, but it's still Canucks hockey, on TV, in Oregon! Oh, and if you are wondering, that is a Wii sensor bar on top. If you want to trade Wii numbers, so that we can increase our Wii parade numbers, it would make my daughter really happy.
I watched a few games on my computer monitor, but found the experience was less than satisfying. Then I remembered that my Polaroid LCD TV had, of all things, a VGA input. I enabled the dual monitor display on my laptop, connected it up to the TV with a VGA cable, and started watching the broadcast, making sure to put the Yahoo! video player into full screen mode. I ran an audio cable from the headphone jack (3.5 mm stereo) to my stereo, and sat back on the couch to enjoy the game.
There is a little compression artifact, and I can't change channels, or pause live TV like Tivo or DVR, but it's still Canucks hockey, on TV, in Oregon! Oh, and if you are wondering, that is a Wii sensor bar on top. If you want to trade Wii numbers, so that we can increase our Wii parade numbers, it would make my daughter really happy.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Safely hacking your web code - Using the Comment tag
Staci has been setting up her new blog, and once in awhile, she will need assistance with customizing the appearance, such as adding or removing page elements. Now my web background consists of using a text editor to manually code HTML, and that was probably 10 years ago, so I'm usually hesitant to start messing with code for a CMS like Blogger or WordPress. But sometimes the built-in tools don't provide that functionality, and you don't have a choice.
Fortunately, HTML is still the language of the web, and PHP is just an extension on top. A really useful function when editing code is to make use of the comment tag. You can easily "remove" a page element, without losing the code, just in case you edit the wrong thing and need to revert back. Here is what it looks like:
Becomes:
Everything between the comment tags is now ignored when the code is processed and rendered by your browser. It is then just a matter of identifying the page element in the code, applying the comment tags, and testing your changes. The funny part is that I had to use some other tags in order to display the comment tags for this post. In my first draft, the comment tags processed as a comment, and were ignored.
Fortunately, HTML is still the language of the web, and PHP is just an extension on top. A really useful function when editing code is to make use of the comment tag. You can easily "remove" a page element, without losing the code, just in case you edit the wrong thing and need to revert back. Here is what it looks like:
<Some page element I want to remove>
Becomes:
<!--
<Some page element I want to remove>
-->
Everything between the comment tags is now ignored when the code is processed and rendered by your browser. It is then just a matter of identifying the page element in the code, applying the comment tags, and testing your changes. The funny part is that I had to use some other tags in order to display the comment tags for this post. In my first draft, the comment tags processed as a comment, and were ignored.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Innovage Mini Digital Camera - Quick Review
I saw this camera in a local Walgreens for $10, and just had to try it. The point of this review was to see if a $10 camera would actually work as described. Could it take pictures? Could it act as a webcam?
After cutting open the annoying blister packaging, I inserted the included AAA battery, and started snapping. No preview or review LCD, and not really what I could call a viewfinder, but hey, I knew that going in. It beeped after each picture, and the LCD counter began counting down.
I loaded up the driver CD first as instructed, then connected the camera via the supplied, proprietary USB cable. Too bad it didn't use a standard mini-USB connector. The camera was auto-detected, and loaded the appropriate drivers. I brought up the My Camera utility, and it said I had 3 photos available to download. One click later, I was reviewing the pictures. I have included a picture of my desk.
I loaded up the driver CD first as instructed, then connected the camera via the supplied, proprietary USB cable. Too bad it didn't use a standard mini-USB connector. The camera was auto-detected, and loaded the appropriate drivers. I brought up the My Camera utility, and it said I had 3 photos available to download. One click later, I was reviewing the pictures. I have included a picture of my desk.
I then closed the My camera utility and brought up MSN to test the webcam. It wasn't recognized on the first try, but after disconnecting and re-connecting a couple of times, I was sending video. So yes, the Innovage works as advertised. Pictures do require a lot of ambient light since there isn't a flash, and you do need to download them to see what you captured. Webcam performance was a little jerky, but it did work. The tiny size scores high on the geek scale, and it is now the smallest camera I own.
If you find yourself in a pinch where you suddenly need a digital camera or webcam, and find yourself next to a Walgreens, the Innovage might be the solution for you!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Moblogging with Blogger
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Posting to Blogger via PDA and Pocket IE
Pam is due to replace her cellphone and asked about the functions of my XV6700, specifically, if I could blog from it.
I know I could probably do this via SMS text message and Blogger's mobile blogging feature, but I don't quite have that setup yet, so I thought I would try it via wi-fi and Pocket IE, since the XV6700 is also a full PocketPC PDA.
If you are reading this now, it means that I was successful! There were a couple of glitches with the small screen and how a few buttons appeared and were used. For example, I had to click below the Draft and Publish buttons to actually invoke them. The built-in slide out keyboard was a definite plus. So in the end, blogging via Pocket IE didn't present much of a challenge at all.
I know I could probably do this via SMS text message and Blogger's mobile blogging feature, but I don't quite have that setup yet, so I thought I would try it via wi-fi and Pocket IE, since the XV6700 is also a full PocketPC PDA.
If you are reading this now, it means that I was successful! There were a couple of glitches with the small screen and how a few buttons appeared and were used. For example, I had to click below the Draft and Publish buttons to actually invoke them. The built-in slide out keyboard was a definite plus. So in the end, blogging via Pocket IE didn't present much of a challenge at all.
Monday, February 12, 2007
"Fixing" my wireless network
Staci mentioned she was having problems with video playback. I had her demonstrate, and the videos from our Canon PowerShot S2 IS were definitely jittery. One thing I should mention is that I setup a network storage system last year, to handle the storage demands. It is a Compaq PIII 700 mHz running Naslite-2 and dual 300 GB IDE drives in RAID-1 configuration for redundancy. Staci connects to the network via the Dell's built-in wireless-G NIC and our Netgear WGR614 router.
I knew the issue was either with the NAS, or the wireless connection. Since her laptop is across the room from the router, I knew she wasn't suffering from drop-outs or poor wireless coverage. Knowing that the Canon's videos were quite large (at 640x480x30fps and stereo audio, a 70 second clip is 138 MB), I initially thought the NAS wasn't fast enough to stream the video. But after giving my head a shake, I knew it couldn't be the NAS, as Naslite-2 is a dedicated NAS O/S with an miniscule 8 MB footprint. All the CPU and most of the RAM is dedicated to running the NAS, and the system had a 100 mbps wired ethernet connection to the router.
Wait a sec....the NAS has a wired connection. A light went off in my head, and I thought, maybe I should re-visit the whole wireless connection variable? Even if her laptop was doing a 54 Mbps wireless connection, there was a still quite a lot of overhead involved with WEP etc., right?
Was easy enough to test. I grabbed an ethernet cable from the box o' cables I have stored in the garage, laid it across the floor, got the laptop connected. Nada! One of the cable terminations had a broken clip, plus the cable itself had a lot of kinks (it was reclaimed out of a garbage pile from work). Hoping it was just the terminator, I re-crimped the end following the T568B standard. The connectivity LEDs fired up on both ends, and I was back in business. It was a simple config change on the laptop to disable the wireless radio. The wired ethernet port auto-sensed the connection, and negotiated a new IP. I brought up the same 138MB video file, and playback was silky smooth. I tried some other videos, just to make sure there wasn't buffering going on somewhere, and playback was still perfect. This problem was solved!
Well, okay, I still have an ethernet cable lying across the living room. I'm saving the project to put in a permanent wired ethernet connection, complete with wall jack, for a later date. I know I didn't really "fix" my wireless network, and I apologize if you were looking for tips on changing your wireless configuration. But it may be useful to examine your own network configuration and usage, and determine if a wired connection may be doable. Wifi has it's advantages as far as providing convenience and mobility, but when it comes to rock-solid reliability and outright speed, not to mention better security, a wired ethernet connection beats wireless every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I knew the issue was either with the NAS, or the wireless connection. Since her laptop is across the room from the router, I knew she wasn't suffering from drop-outs or poor wireless coverage. Knowing that the Canon's videos were quite large (at 640x480x30fps and stereo audio, a 70 second clip is 138 MB), I initially thought the NAS wasn't fast enough to stream the video. But after giving my head a shake, I knew it couldn't be the NAS, as Naslite-2 is a dedicated NAS O/S with an miniscule 8 MB footprint. All the CPU and most of the RAM is dedicated to running the NAS, and the system had a 100 mbps wired ethernet connection to the router.
Wait a sec....the NAS has a wired connection. A light went off in my head, and I thought, maybe I should re-visit the whole wireless connection variable? Even if her laptop was doing a 54 Mbps wireless connection, there was a still quite a lot of overhead involved with WEP etc., right?
Was easy enough to test. I grabbed an ethernet cable from the box o' cables I have stored in the garage, laid it across the floor, got the laptop connected. Nada! One of the cable terminations had a broken clip, plus the cable itself had a lot of kinks (it was reclaimed out of a garbage pile from work). Hoping it was just the terminator, I re-crimped the end following the T568B standard. The connectivity LEDs fired up on both ends, and I was back in business. It was a simple config change on the laptop to disable the wireless radio. The wired ethernet port auto-sensed the connection, and negotiated a new IP. I brought up the same 138MB video file, and playback was silky smooth. I tried some other videos, just to make sure there wasn't buffering going on somewhere, and playback was still perfect. This problem was solved!
Well, okay, I still have an ethernet cable lying across the living room. I'm saving the project to put in a permanent wired ethernet connection, complete with wall jack, for a later date. I know I didn't really "fix" my wireless network, and I apologize if you were looking for tips on changing your wireless configuration. But it may be useful to examine your own network configuration and usage, and determine if a wired connection may be doable. Wifi has it's advantages as far as providing convenience and mobility, but when it comes to rock-solid reliability and outright speed, not to mention better security, a wired ethernet connection beats wireless every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Star Office - MS Office Document Types
My dad IM'd me today about a problem with a file my Mom was creating and sending via email. Seems nobody could open it. I had him forward it to me, and to my surprise, I couldn't open it either. It had an .ODT filetype extension, and no associated program in Windows XP. A quick Google of the words "odt filetype" brought up a nice explanation from filext.com, a site I have used in the past. It was a StarOffice word processing document.
A moment to backtrack - I had put together my Mom's system from an old Dell which only had a Win2000 Pro license. I decided to give Ubuntu a try, and found it worked quite well with the hardware. I knew down the road there would probably be some compatibility questions, so you can say I brought it on myself.
After a few quick instructions to my dad and mom via IM to specify the file type as "Word 97/2000/XP" when they saved the file, their document compatibility issue was fixed.
A moment to backtrack - I had put together my Mom's system from an old Dell which only had a Win2000 Pro license. I decided to give Ubuntu a try, and found it worked quite well with the hardware. I knew down the road there would probably be some compatibility questions, so you can say I brought it on myself.
After a few quick instructions to my dad and mom via IM to specify the file type as "Word 97/2000/XP" when they saved the file, their document compatibility issue was fixed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
